Remarkably, the writer of this column either failed to locate, or located but chose not to use, this significant report of the Federal Railroad Administration:
“Report to Congress: Positive Train Control Implementation Status, Issues, and Impacts”
August 2012
Notably, from the Executive Summary of the FRA Report:
“…this effort is hampered by the novel nature of the issues. PTC implementation, on the scale required by the RSIA, has never been attempted anywhere in the world.”
and
“However, since FRA approved the PTCIPs, both freight and passenger railroads have encountered significant technical and programmatic issues that make accomplishment of these plans questionable. Given the current state of development and availability of the required hardware and software, along with deployment considerations, most railroads will likely not be able to complete full RSIA-required implementation of PTC by December 31, 2015. Partial deployment of PTC can likely be achieved; however, the extent of which is dependent upon successful resolution of known technical and programmatic issues and any new emergent issues.” [Emphasis added]
The signal people I know have been shaking their heads for a long time. A one time fix for a one size fits all solution is not out there and then there is the crushing cost of compliance for the shortlines.
(I don’t want to be on the locomotive when the GIS to GPS software gets confused and wants to “recalculate”…and you are dealing with the absolutes that congress ASSUMED could be met. Stop the railroad every time it frequently wants to “recalulate” ?)
I am hearing that some shortlines will be forced to buy newer second and third generation locomotives just to have a prayer of a chance of having working equipment where they need it with their interchange partners.
Part of the problem is that Class 1’s, especially those without passenger service or low traffic levels to begin with, don’t want Positive Train Control. Some don’t like the price, others don’t see a need for it on their railroads or application. This article could be a propaganda piece to make PTC look bad.
I have no knowledge about PTC but a question that others might know answers to. Some other industrial countries have had systems that are the equivalent of PTC. Why couldn’t those systems have been modified and used here to avoid some of the problems described above?
Railroads in other countries have a lighter loading gauge than we do, trains are not as heavy, etc. because we build to withstand accidents and collisions. Other countries’ use avoidance signal systems to keep trains from colliding (like PTC).
I’ve said it before - we’ve had cab signals for almost 100 years, signal enforcement devices for ages, yet many railroads weren’t even thinking about adding them to lines. PTC was only a matter of time in coming.
PTC has proven itself on railroads in other countries…but here we have a different loading gauge and philosophy about how to run a railroad. We look at “collateral” damage as part of the system.
PTC does more than save lives, it saves equipment and property and business and operations. If you don’t have collisions you don’t kill or injure people, you don’t damage or destroy equipment, you don’t stop doing business by not being able to operate for long periods of time. . PTC also allows for more frequent traffic depending on the system.
Loading gauges, etc. have nothing to do with a positive control system to avoid collisions. The system and software that are proven to work elsewhere should be able to work here with some adjustments. Much better to buy a proven system with the bugs worked out. Look back at the fiasco with implementing a new air traffic control computer system that was obsolete before it was installed.
To implement or not to implement has an economic factor, and that is what drives a lot of decisions. And we’re seeing that acknowledged with this issue.
While human lives are virtually impossible to put a price on, all the other economic factors do have a definite price. If the cost of PTC were clearly less than the losses it would prevent, I’m sure the railroads would be jumping at the opportunity to install the system.
And if the saving of lives is indeed our primary goal, let’s put some of that money into grade crossing separations, ROW isolation, and other such initiatives - places we know there is a problem but where the resources apparently don’t exist to remedy them.
Even after 100 years, we still don’t have a universal signal system across the country. And they want a universal system it two years? Using a technology that is apparently unproven in the aggregate?
It’s kinda like the Diesel regen systems. We’re trying to get fire apparatus exempted from the automatic shutdown portions of the system, because, gee, how good would it be to have a fire engine shut down to regen in the middle of fighting the fire at your house?
Oh, for a phased implementation! If only it had be 10% of track mileage a year for 5 years instead of 100% in 2015!
The two most likely outcomes for 2015 are the entire rail network grinds to a halt because of equipment, communication, hardware and software bugs OR the FRA grants an extension. Full, working implementation is not likely.
Nothing quite like Congress voting to spend other peoples money on a unfunded madate to implement uninvented interoperable technology all across the country by a specific near term date as a knee jerk reaction to a single individual’s failure to do the job he was hired to do.
I don’t think it was just that one incident. But that incident is the straw on the camel’s back. Look how many miles of dark territory we still have. And not just industrial tracks or branch lines.